Lawsplainer -- The Unsoundness Of Judge Boasberg's Basis For Quashing The Grand Jury Subpoenas Regarding Fed Chairman Powell.
The threshold for a valid criminal investigation is low but Judge Boasberg finds the "sole or dominant purpose" in the Powell subpoenas is to harass and intimidate the Fed Chairman into resigning.
On March 11, 2026, Chief Judge Boasberg of the D.C. District Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Quash two grand jury subpoenas served on the Federal Reserve by the U.S Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The subpoenas were for records relating to the published cost-overruns in the renovation of the Federal Reserve building in D.C., and information about the testimony of Fed. Chairman Jerome Powell concerning that subject.
The Federal Reserved objected to providing this information, and went to the Court “overseeing” the grand jury to contest the subpoenas. Their motion was assigned to Judge Boasberg.
In the District of Columbia, by local rule adopted by the Judges of that court years ago, all disputes over grand jury subpoenas or testimony are assigned to the Presiding Judge to handle. Different districts have different rules, and the Judges are free to adopt and change the local rules in whatever way suits them.
Under the D.C. Rule, the motions filed by the Federal Reserve were assigned to Chief Judge Boasberg in the normal course.
My opinion is that Judge Boasberg’s decision is wrong on the law. Several passages from his decision are set forth below, along with why I disagree. But before getting into those, I think it might be useful for readers to simply have a better understanding of the federal grand jury process because it is different than many state grand jury processes you might have read about in your own states.
The grand jury is an “independent” entity that exists within the Judiciary because it exercises some of its authority backed up by the coercive power of the Court. The DOJ cannot do that — when confronted with a witness or other subject who will not cooperate, the DOJ has to file with the Court an Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt which brings the person before the Court to explain the lack of cooperation.
Subpoenas sent by a grand jury, both for testimony and for documents, are actually District Court subpoenas — they are orders from the Court to show up and answer questions or to provide documents — or both. The GJ is not part of DOJ — it a tool used by DOJ to collect evidence of possible criminal activity.
Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, a federal felony charge can be filed in the District Court only by the grand jury, not by DOJ. Yes — the DOJ prosecutors do write the indictments, and they do present the evidence and explain the law to the grand jurors. But when it is time to vote the only people in the room are grand jurors behind locked doors. They open the doors after the vote, and invite a federal judge to attend and announce to him/her what they have done.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17, covers “subpoenas.” It does not distinguish between subpoenas for trial and subpoenas for the grand jury. One directs the person receiving the subpoena to appear before the grand jury, and the other directs the person to appear before the district court. Under Rule 17(c)(2) a subpoena is subject to being “quashed” — compliance excused — “if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.”
